single-payer system ... singled out

[martu]

You weren't debating me, you were insulting me. Don't expect me to be polite in return, and don't pretend that I am the one who made it personal. You were.

What was the insult exactly?

 

[Architect]

You mean like what the Govenator is proposing.

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/may/24/state-may-ax-healthy-families-help/

The most recent data from the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research reports that about 1 in 5 Californians under 65, or 6.4 million, have no insurance. (Those over 65 are generally covered through Medicare.)
Approximately 15 percent, or an additional 5 million children and adults, receive health coverage through either Healthy Families or Medi-Cal.
An analysis of the Schwarzenegger proposals by Health Access finds that about 1.5 million children, 433,000 parents and 73,000 seniors and people with disabilities would lose coverage.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I'm sure they'll learn an important lesson about proper financial planning. It'll be good for their moral development.

 

[Architect]

You mean the ones who survive? Or do you mean the ones with no money?

 

[quixotecoyote]

You mean the ones who survive? Or do you mean the ones with no money?

Both. I've learned from fuelair that death can be educational, and I'm spreading that information around the forum.

eta: Of course since he isn't playing in this thread, he'll have to go without knowing of my efforts to impart his wisdom. At least Zig and Beerina will appreciate my efforts to teach the uninsured the stupidity of not saving enough money for health care.

 

[Ziggurat]

Except they pay too. So yes, you missed something. Everyone is paying taxes, so everyone pays.

I didn't miss that at all. All this means is that they're willing to pay more themselves in order to force other people to pay more as well. If they weren't interested in forcing other people to pay, if they just wanted to pay more themselves, well, you don't need taxes for that.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't know how valid it is, but I have some concern that medicare isn't fixed because there are too many people who don't want it to be

So it's broken because it's being sabotaged? Well, first off, where's the evidence? That's really quite a claim, can you back it up with anything other than your suspicion?

And secondly, supposing it's true, wouldn't a universal health care system run the risk of being similarly sabotaged?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his means.

And we saw how well that works in the Soviet Union.........

Has anyone pointed out yet that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", as well as the other stuff about no private property, comes from the New Testament, not Marx?

Brick Testament to the rescue!

Yet another example of Jesus' teachings being ignored and forgotten by US right-wingers.
http://thebricktestament.com/acts_of_the_apostles/accept_communism_or_die/ac04_32p34-35.html

 

[Architect]

I didn't miss that at all. All this means is that they're willing to pay more themselves in order to force other people to pay more as well. If they weren't interested in forcing other people to pay, if they just wanted to pay more themselves, well, you don't need taxes for that.

Oh dearrie me. You're really starting to tie yourself up in knots here.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh dearrie me. You're really starting to tie yourself up in knots here.

Not at all. If you want to pay for something yourself, you don't need taxes to do it. Taxes are a way of forcing other people to pay for things. Always has been, always will be. Do you actually deny this? If so, it would be nice if you actually, you know, advanced an argument or something. Just a suggestion.

 

[Ziggurat]

Has anyone pointed out yet that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", as well as the other stuff about no private property, comes from the New Testament, not Marx?

Because there's no difference between a voluntary agreement to share among a small group of people with a common interest, and society-wide confiscation backed by the power of the state.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Not at all. If you want to pay for something yourself, you don't need taxes to do it. Taxes are a way of forcing other people to pay for things.

So is insurance.

 

[Ziggurat]

So is insurance.

Not if it isn't mandatory. Do you really not see any difference, or were you hoping nobody else would?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Not if it isn't mandatory. Do you really not see any difference, or were you hoping nobody else would?

Well only uninsured people should be able to protest against the proposition that taxes be used in this way. Everyone else is making someone else pay for them, or paying for someone else.

In your world the punishment for being crap with your money is the risk of not being able to look after your health. In mine the worst thing that happens is that someone else takes the money before you can be irresponsible with it. You did imply earlier in the thread, I think, that the only people without some provision for their health would be people who were irresponsible with their money, or who made bad decisions, did you not?

 

[Architect]

I think the problem here is that there's simply a massive policical gulf between Rolfe, Yaffle, myself, and other on one hand and Ziggy on the other. We're starting from the point that adequate healthcare should be a right, regardless of personal circumstances or contributory factors, and Ziggy adopts what I might loosely call a very libertarian view.

The trouble is that I, for one, just can't comprehend the reasoning behind such a position. It seems to me - with the greatest of respect, Ziggy - to be a morally and socially bankrupt position which potentially leaves the most vulnerable in our society at risk. Frankly, it was - and is - wrong that racehorses enjoy high levels of medical care whilst people fall through the net.

The other problem is the Ziggy simply refuses to accept that the USG can in fact implement an effective universal system in the same way that other countries have done (and at a fraction of the cost). I'll admit that the Medicare/Aid problem is an interesting one, but heck this is the nation which put a man on the moon.

(sigh)

 

[elbe]

So it's broken because it's being sabotaged? Well, first off, where's the evidence? That's really quite a claim, can you back it up with anything other than your suspicion?

And secondly, supposing it's true, wouldn't a universal health care system run the risk of being similarly sabotaged?

While "sabotaged" might be an apt term, I think it's too loaded for what I'm was suggesting. I don't believe anyone (ignoring crazy fringe nuts, possibly) is actively trying to make it not work as well as it could, though I do believe there are people actively trying to shut it down, but I think its possible that there are people who are passively sabotaging it by refusing to attempt to fix its problems.

As an example, I think it is likely that if, say, a bill were passed to reform medicare to make it more efficient there will be congress persons who are so against it on principle that they will vote against it. Do I have any hard evidence? No, but I read what the "small government" people have to say about medicare.

Maybe I'm being an optimist, but I believe that if the US really wanted to have a working universal medical system they could make it work well.

 

[ddt]

Out of curiosity since it's being said that Americans pay much more for healthcare than people living in "UHC-Countries". In Germany the Government decided that the percentual fee for UHC is 15,5% [pre-tax income] since January 1, 2009. Of course, people with higher incomes usually switch to private insurance to safe money - but how much do people in here pay for their Healthcare in percent then if it's so expensive in the US?

Did the government set a uniform percentage? When I lived in Germany (1993-95), the percentages differed between insurers. E.g., the "Techniker Krankenkasse" (an insurer for people with technical professions) asked a lower percentage than most local-based insurers.

To put the percentage in perspective, though, you forgot to mention a couple of things:

1) The percentage only applies to gross income up to EUR 3,675 / month.

2) The fee pays for insurance for the whole family, irrespective of its size.

3) Sick leave ("Krankengeld") - i.e., continuation of wage payment during illness - is also paid out of these fees. These costs are normally not included in the discussion of health care costs.

Please correct me if I'm wrong; as said, my information is dated.

On a general note, what strikes me in these discussions on health care is that there are three kinds of people:
1) non-Americans (Europeans, Canadians, Australians, ...) who praise the blessings of (their own form of) UHC;
2) Americans who favor a change to (some kind of) UHC;
3) Americans who grasp at all straws to defend the current US "system" - it isn't really a system, it's characterized by the absence of an overall system and a fragmentation in all kinds of subsystems.

That - and the simple fact of the financial data - should tell enough.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well only uninsured people should be able to protest against the proposition that taxes be used in this way.

What in the world are you talking about? Every taxpayer has the right to voice their opinion about how their taxes are being used.

In your world the punishment for being crap with your money is the risk of not being able to look after your health.

No, it is not punishment. Punishment requires agency. That is a possible consequence of frittering away your money, but it is not punishment. I've said this explicitly already.

In mine the worst thing that happens is that someone else takes the money before you can be irresponsible with it.

No. There are other negative consequences, consequences which often get ignored because they are not as direct, but they can nonetheless be very severe.

You did imply earlier in the thread, I think, that the only people without some provision for their health would be people who were irresponsible with their money, or who made bad decisions, did you not?

No, I did not. I believe I said that the problem in the US is dominated by such people. That is not the same thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think the problem here is that there's simply a massive policical gulf between Rolfe, Yaffle, myself, and other on one hand and Ziggy on the other. We're starting from the point that adequate healthcare should be a right, regardless of personal circumstances or contributory factors, and Ziggy adopts what I might loosely call a very libertarian view.

Well, it's certainly more libertarian than your own, but I would hesitate to call it that, because there are far more libertarian views out there regarding health care than my own.

The trouble is that I, for one, just can't comprehend the reasoning behind such a position. It seems to me - with the greatest of respect, Ziggy - to be a morally and socially bankrupt position which potentially leaves the most vulnerable in our society at risk.

The basic idea is actually quite simple: positive rights are problematic, and tend to lead to an unhealthy expansion of government power and influence, and encourages dysfunctional dependency. Now, you may or may not agree with my assessment about these things (and I assume you do not), but given that I think that this is what does happen in general (and what I think has happened in the UK), I am in fact taking a moral stance. The difference is that I can recognize your stance as moral too, because I understand it's predicated on a different understanding of the way things work, whereas you cannot recognize that about me.

Frankly, it was - and is - wrong that racehorses enjoy high levels of medical care whilst people fall through the net.

Once again, racehorses have nothing to do with it. What you are really saying is that as long as there are people falling through the cracks, rich people shouldn't be able to spend their money however they want to. Using racehorses is a way to appeal to emotion, as well as to disguise the real implications of what you're saying.

The other problem is the Ziggy simply refuses to accept that the USG can in fact implement an effective universal system in the same way that other countries have done (and at a fraction of the cost).

You say that as if it's a given. But it just isn't.

I'll admit that the Medicare/Aid problem is an interesting one

And yet, you won't actually say how to deal with it.

but heck this is the nation which put a man on the moon.

Irrelevant comparison. The two problems are not remotely similar. Exceptional ability in one area does not always translate to others.

 

[Architect]

On a general note, what strikes me in these discussions on health care is that there are three kinds of people:
1) non-Americans (Europeans, Canadians, Australians, ...) who praise the blessings of (their own form of) UHC;
2) Americans who favor a change to (some kind of) UHC;
3) Americans who grasp at all straws to defend the current US "system" - it isn't really a system, it's characterized by the absence of an overall system and a fragmentation in all kinds of subsystems.

That - and the simple fact of the financial data - should tell enough.

In all fairness, (3) is over simplified - there seems to be some sort of political or philosophical objection to their helping out those who they perceive as having failed to take adequate steps to protect themselves. They also seem to believe that the USG couldn't run the proverbial p*** up in a brewery.